Allowed

Sharwan Kumar S/O Shri Hanumanram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2024CRLMB/13931/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, a registered vehicle owner charged with narcotics offenses, acknowledging no case was made out against him as no contraband was recovered from his possession, despite Section 37 NDPS Act implications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Sharwan Kumar S/O Shri Hanumanram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5329]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13931/2023

¶4

Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Hanumanram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Pooniyo Ki Dhani Khedi Salwa, Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (Presently Confined In District Jail At Jhalawar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narsi Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. A. Naqvi, Sr. Adv cum AAG Mr. S. S. Mahla, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

19/01/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter

¶14

are tabulated herein below:

¶15

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	33/2020
2.	Concerned Police Station	Ghatoli
3.	District	Jhalawar
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.
5.	Offences added, if any	Sections25 and 39 of NDPS Act.
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	18.10.2023

¶16

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no

¶17

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

[2024:RJ-JP:5329]

[CRLMB-13931/2023]

(2 of 3)

incarceration is not warranted. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. Neither the petitioner was present on the spot nor any recovery has been affected from him. The principal-accused persons namely Mahesh @ Mahesh Tandi, Dev Singh and Indra Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this High Court vide orders dated 07.07.2022 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9257/2022 and 05.10.2020 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8706/2020. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶22

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the alleged recovered contraband is way above the demarcated commercial quantity, thus, the impediment contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act will be attracted in the factual situation of the present case. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the petitioner was found present at the crime scene nor any incriminating material or contraband was recovered from his possession. The present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this case on account of his being registered owner of vehicle but he has no knowledge regarding the vehicle to be used in contravention of any penal provisions of the statute. It is not disputed that the coaccused S Mahesh @ Mahesh Tandi, Dev Singh and Indra Singh from whom the recovery has been affected have already been

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:5329]

[CRLMB-13931/2023]

enlarged on bail by this High Court vide orders dated 07.07.2022 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9257/2022 and 05.10.2020 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8706/2020 and the case of the present petitioner is on better footing than their cases. This Court is cognizant of the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act but on the ground of parity and considering other aspects, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the accused petitioner. Be that as it may, no final observation and comment can be made at this stage, as the same may influence the course of trial but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶29

Mamta/50

Sharwan Kumar S/O Shri Hanumanram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharwan Kumar S/O Shri Hanumanram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badal Kumar Alias Madaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chagnaram @ Kalu Vs State of Rajasthan

Gautam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarfaraz Mohammad S/O Late Shri Ishaq Mohammad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Alias Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hasandeen S/O Late Chav Khan Vs State of Rajasthan